Close Topic Options

Separation Between Church & State - Page 2

No mate. It is an offence in Victoria, not any other state, to vilify someone for their religious belief, race etc.

These evangelicals have been slandering the Koran for years and were caught out by Muslims who went to one of their seminars. Some of the things they were saying were quite extreme, so people have complained and they have to answer to the courts.

They are not being thrown in jail, they were basically told they couldn't make future speechs about the Koran, and they may have been given a token fine. It's only their refusal to pay the fine which has landed them in further trouble. They have not been thrown in gaol, that is an outright lie.

The columnist who wrote this is a conservative looney, he probably has the worst reputation amongst columnists in Australia. His analysis of the situation is extremely misleading. To be honest with you, the evangelicals are way out of line in this case. They have directly attacked the Koran in a tasteless and childish manner. People should be allowed to speak their mind, but deliberately saying rubbish to incite hatred, then you are causing your own problems.

I think the Victorian law is a bit much, but these guys knew what they were doing and persisted. As a reporter I have to be extremely careful what I preach!

State and Church Separation

CROSSES HONORING TROOPERS PROTESTED

A Texas-based atheist group has filed a federal lawsuit against the Utah Highway Patrol and the Utah Department of Transportation, demanding that crosses erected in honor of fallen UHP troopers be removed from highways on the principle of separation of church and state.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C3949%2C%2C00.html

Separation Between Church & State History & Civil Business Politics

This atheist group is obviously a bit starved of attention. Provided these crosses aren't distracting motorists, who really cares.

And how has this anything to do with Church and State?

Page 2 State and Church Separation

I receive a daily "liberty quotes" email. Today, it contained some very interesting quotes that I wanted to share.

These seem to be pertinent to the discussion here.

State and Church Separation

I disagree with these statements. There is a difference between morality and religion.

I have morals but I am not religious. And there are so many countries around the world that are not governed by the bible I don't think that it is necessary for government.

Separation Between Church & State

I do not believe that the founders of the US, when establishing the 1st Amendment creating freedom of religion, meant it to mean freedom from religion.

A true, rock solid morality presupposes a higher power, whether that higher power is Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, the Goddess, or whatever other Supreme Being. As far as I can tell, any other form of morality tends to be relative or situational. Morality is NOT based upon societal norms, but is frequently contrary to societal expectations.

Here are a couple more quotes:

I don't see any indication of a "wall separating church from state" in any of the quotes that I have found. The 1st Amendment is designed to protect the church from the state. That means ALL churches and religions. It is designed to keep any one religion (including secular humanism) from dominating the state to the detriment of any others. IMO, that is what the whole argument is about - the secular humanists want to dominate the state to the detriment of those religions that believe there is a God who is more powerful and important than the humans.

BTW, this is ONLY discussing this philosophy within the US, involving the US Constitution. I don't know the foundations of how other countries and/or cultures want to work out their definitions.

Separation Church & State - Page 2

I think you make an interesting point about what those words "freedom of the state" truly mean. Is that phrase actually in the first amendment? I read somewhere it wasn't? I guess it could be taken both ways, and it would make sense for Franklin to defend the right of freedom of religion.

But I do disagree with you about morality, unless of course my parents are supreme beings. You don't need to believe in a religion or supreme being to have morals. Children learn behaviour from their parents and peers, it is something that is conditioned. Animals are the same. This applies for morals.

I was taught right from wrong by my parents. My mum is a non-practising Sikh, my father is an atheist. I never attended a place of worship when I was growing up. I skipped bible studies in school. I grew up in an environment without any religion, but I still have morals.

I believe religion and state should be separate for several reasons.

Firstly, a growing wave of atheism. More and more people in my country and others don't believe in religion. I'm not sure if this is the trend in the US, but certainly in Australia and Europe.

Secondly, a religion is one person's belief. It should not be the cornerstone to rule a large population who may or may not hold similar beliefs.

But most importantly, throughout history religious leaders have a horrific record when it comes to state matters. If a religious leader takes power you can bet they will do whatever they can to advance their religion and followers. This has been proven time and time again. It has also been proven that religious freedom takes a back seat when one faith has all the power.

This happens today in countries that are governed by Sharia law. I'm sure most people in this forum would be opposed to the rule of Islam, as I certainly am. So if that is the case, why should we support the rule of another religion?

Religious leaders have also used relgion to justify whatever they want, whether it is war, torture, genocide etc. And people accept it rightly or wrongly because it is done under the cloak of religion. This is wrong but has happened far too often to not learn a lesson.

Let's face it, religion has been used and abused as a powerful tool to control the masses.

I don't believe that religion is always separate from the state anyway. The reality is politicians will always strive for the religious ticket in areas where religion is popular or important. Look at how Bush regained power.

And a lot of politicians belong, or at least say they belong to a religion. They think it shows they are decent, squeaky clean people. So their opinions will be shaped by their belief, at least in their public life! There is nothing wrong with that. But that should be the extent of a religion's influence in state matters, in my opinion.

Edited: arvhic on 22nd Dec, 2005 - 5:16am